Who said anything about women? You.Women to carry that coffin
Err ok
Who said anything about women? You.Women to carry that coffin
Err ok
Its the draw on the public purse and the immunity from many things that apply to the rest of us commoners.Why do we need a new system if we do away with the royals? Am I being oversimplistic?
If the role of the monarch is purely symbolic (and in terms of signing off government decisions, acts of parliament etc, it is) then why do we need to replace them with anything?
You could run everything exactly as it is, but without the charade of requiring royal assent. Which hasn't been denied for 100s of years.
The answer to "what would you replace it with?" is surely - nothing
How did that turn out?Wasn't the Iraq war modern day imperialism or a form of colonialism?
The answer to "what would you replace it with?" is surely - nothing
Parliament is not sovereignParliament is sovereign. An act removing the monarchy from politics, to assume a figurehead role is all it would need.
The hole could be filled by
Written constitution. Because the unencoded one would be over
Bill of rights
Elected Second chamber
Voting by PR (choice of real one this time)
Yeah, I know, Fantasy Island
Parliament is not sovereign
It’s called HM GOVT for a reason.
No as those member swear an oath before they sit in either chamber who is that oath too??If the MEMBERS of Parliament vote no confidence in a government, and that government falls.
Parliament has made that decision. Therefore…..
I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.
Yeah, and I bet they were all tall/ strong and of the same height.They were hand picked on height and experience apparently
Because OUR system is the royals. Or rather the monarch.Why do we need a new system if we do away with the royals? Am I being oversimplistic?
If the role of the monarch is purely symbolic (and in terms of signing off government decisions, acts of parliament etc, it is) then why do we need to replace them with anything?
You could run everything exactly as it is, but without the charade of requiring royal assent. Which hasn't been denied for 100s of years.
The answer to "what would you replace it with?" is surely - nothing
Its the draw on the public purse and the immunity from many things that apply to the rest of us commoners.
And as far as being 'purely symbolic'..... that's also part of the point. The notion of being born into superiority and 'upper class' is simply not relevant in a modern society.
It's definitely a service too, yeah she was rich and had privilege, but loads of people get that and still have ultimate control over what they're doing. Even people far less well off have a much easier life I expect.Let’s look at the facts the entire world ( not a hyperbole) has written about her since her death from putin to biden from macron to merkel and yet not one person had a bad word for her.
That alone speaks volumes.
Now we can debate the office of state but I don’t think you can really argue that the queen served the country to the end.
No as those member swear an oath before they sit in either chamber who is that oath too??
There NO way politically to remove the monarch none, in fact there isn’t even a way to debate removing them.
The crown overrules everything why do you think both boris and Liz went to balmoral even after they were voted out and in respectively.
-
The wording of the oath comes from the Promissory Oaths Act 1868. The form and manner of giving the oath are set out in the Oaths Act 1978.
MPs take the oath by holding the sacred text in their uplifted hand and saying the words of the oath:
No it can’t as there is no politicsl means by which we can remove the monarch it simply goes against what the system is.Anything can be changed…if Parliament decided to remove the monarchy from Parliament. She would have to sign the bill.
This how it works in grown up countries. Don’t bother to throw the rise of the Swedish Democrats at me. I’m very aware of it.
Swedish government | sweden.se
Swedish government is built on democracy. The parliament and government have the political power. The monarch has ceremonial functions.sweden.se
I’m not arguing against that I’m saying that this is our system.Systems can be changed, and have been.
“ NO The crown is the pyramid”
It’s actually an inverted pyramid, and holds up all the dross and malpractices the system is open too.
I was having this very conversation the other day, I think a Venn diagram of those who believe in "a superior being" and monarchists would be interesting.I don't disagree with any of that. Think that's kind of my point. Monarchists arguing we should keep them because there's nothing better to replace them with is nonsensical. Any influence they do have over the governance of this country they're not supposed to have. We don't need them or anything like them in order to run the country.
As far as I can see the only tangible benefit of them is the tourism argument. And that's not clear cut by any stretch.
They seem to play almost a semi-religious role in many people's lives I suppose. Looking up to them as if they are in some way superior just because who their parents are. It's not logical, but then other religions aren't logical. Suppose it makes people feel something though.
So could maybe continue as a charity like other religions then perhaps? If people want to bow and scrape before someone because they speak with a plummy accent and their ancestors did a bit of conquering and murdering back in the day, good luck to them. Not sure why the rest of us should be expected to play along with the farce though.
SadlyI’m not arguing against that I’m saying that this is our system.
I’m not arguing against that I’m saying that this is our system.